|
|
Post by xtrialbyfirex on May 15, 2012 1:28:12 GMT -5
It was interesting to watch it to see how it compares to Hunger Games, especially considering the talk of it on the podcast.
I guess my own take on the two was that other than the setup, and the announcement of the deaths of each contestant, that seems to be where the similarities end. (although admittedly the "game" takes up the majority of both movies, so they are ultimately very similar).
In Battle Royale there is almost no plot whatsoever, only the initial set up and then the kids teaming up/killing each other. That is really about all there was to it.
I don't know if Hunger Games "rips off" Battle Royale, as much as it takes the skeleton of that story and fleshes it out.
I know Ted has voiced very strong feelings about the subject, but for the sake of discussion (not trying to shit on anyone's opinion) I would have to disagree that Battle Royale is sufficiently better than Hunger Games to watch one and avoid the other.
Hunger Games is much more visually impressive than Battle Royale and is much more character driven. Plus Jennifer Lawrence gives the strongest performance out of either movie.
Also I thought the violence was strong in both movies. There isn't much blood in Hunger games but the allusion of a much larger person killing very small and very young children is just as or more effective than anything in Battle Royale.
On top of that the endings are very different and head in different directions.
Since originality has been an issue with Hunger games I think it is worth noting that the collars in Battle Royale, that destroy the carotid arteries of misbehaving contestants, were probably lifted directly from Escape from New York.
I enjoyed both movies quite a bit, and consider them both well worth watching.
|
|
yddy
Ghost in the Graveyard
Posts: 568
|
Post by yddy on May 15, 2012 11:04:56 GMT -5
I enjoy both movies as well, and like you, think that, while they share a similar premise of kids killing kids as a way to control the country, they are two vastly different films/books. I will say that you get a bit more character development in the book to Battle Royale - it's massive - than you do with the film, but I agree that Hunger Games is the more character driven of the two.
The other positive I see is that Battle Royale, at least here, is geared toward genre fans, whereas Hunger Games is geared toward teens. I have to give them credit for bringing youths storylines that are much more realistic (I do argue that Hunger Games and Battle Royale both could happen in a dystopian future) than say...teen vampire romance (cheap shot, I know, but I had to go there).
|
|
misterd
Frightful Fiend
Posts: 1,220
|
Post by misterd on May 19, 2012 20:57:13 GMT -5
I wouldn't say either scenario is very plausible for a host of reasons, chief among them that attacking children would not be a good way to keep citizens obedient.
As for the films themselves, neither is original, as every teacher fantasizes this exact thing at this time of year. And really we have Lord of the Flies, Most Dangerous Game, the Running Man and others who beat both the stands decades ago (many decades in some cases). Add in the idea of reality TV competitions which we've seen a great deal of the past 20 years (and I think in Japan first), the leap to either story is a small one.
Now you toss in the fact that the writer of Hunger Games is a middle aged housewife, and the demographic odds are very good she knows nothing about Asian cinema, let alone violent and controversial Asian cinema.
They are both also very different in theme, tone, execution. BR is brutally violent, and largely ignores the world outside the game. Its focus is on developing the characters, reminding us of who they are and how they are connected, humanizing them to make their deaths hurt more. HG focuses on Katness and her boy toy. Very little is known about the other contestants. And while the game is still the main event of the film, we see far,far more about the world they are in, and the role of the game in it. Ted may have scoffed, but Tony was right - HG is very much in the vein of 1984. Not nearly the quality of that tale (again, young readers section) but many of the themes are echoed, especially the use of media to manipulate the public.
In the end, BR is a more brutal film, and for me more affecting. HG was an interesting diversion, but it is also a world I would be interested in returning to.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamtomorrow on Jul 28, 2012 5:23:16 GMT -5
Also, The Hunger Games owes a massive debt to Rollerball (decadent and corrupt government uses violent sport to placate the masses; it all goes wrong for them when one contestant becomes too popular with the audience; cue attempts to rig the game so that he/she is taken out).
|
|
bigmac
Revolting Revenant
You mean the movie lied!?!?!?
Posts: 1,508
|
Post by bigmac on Jul 28, 2012 22:33:17 GMT -5
Also, The Hunger Games owes a massive debt to Rollerball (decadent and corrupt government uses violent sport to placate the masses; it all goes wrong for them when one contestant becomes too popular with the audience; cue attempts to rig the game so that he/she is taken out). Spot on with that, jamtomorrow. The forced love triangle in HG really annoyed me, as did Peta (was that his name?) having the time and supplies to make himself look like a rock, even though he was wounded . The idea of sponsors was never fleshed out enough and the open revolt in the one district seemed rather hockey. Not a movie I'll revisit, and I doubt I'll see the followups (thought I suspect they'll be better than Battle Royale 2). Spoiler notice added if you haven't seen the film. |
|
|
|
Post by darkfiction74 on Sept 14, 2012 21:10:54 GMT -5
I'm about to watch this tonight.  |
|
maarow
Ghost in the Graveyard
Posts: 509
|
Post by maarow on Sept 15, 2012 1:30:59 GMT -5
I liked Hunger Games okay, but the plot contrivances made an impossible situation way too easy for the Mary Sue lead character to always do the right thing. She never had any really difficult choices to make--all the characters she killed were portrayed as EVIL and she did it in self-defense only, almost out of instinct. Battle Royale did a much better job, in my opinion, of conveying how nobody could get out of the competition with their hands clean and their souls intact.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkfiction74 on Sept 15, 2012 12:54:35 GMT -5
Watched Battle Royale last night. It's a pretty awesome movie, so I'm glad that I bought it. I'll read the book, which I also got, after I'm done with The Hunger Games trilogy.
|
|
|
|
Post by xtrialbyfirex on Sept 15, 2012 14:06:07 GMT -5
I liked Hunger Games okay, but the plot contrivances made an impossible situation way too easy for the Mary Sue lead character to always do the right thing. She never had any really difficult choices to make--all the characters she killed were portrayed as EVIL and she did it in self-defense only, almost out of instinct. Battle Royale did a much better job, in my opinion, of conveying how nobody could get out of the competition with their hands clean and their souls intact. well Katniss does choose to compete in place of her little sister, and she would rather kill herself with poison berries than kill her friend, or be killed in the competition than kill her hometown friend at the end. Personally, I'd say those are all tough choices  No she isn't "soiled" by the evil of the competition. That is what makes her special and gives hope to those who watch the completion. You don't have to be evil and murderous to survive in an evil world. I think that is a pretty thoughtful underlying message for a movie like this. |
|
yddy
Ghost in the Graveyard
Posts: 568
|
Post by yddy on Sept 15, 2012 14:10:03 GMT -5
The same argument about killing in only in self-defense could be made of Shuya. He, like Katniss, was only trying to protect Noriko, and he spent a good, long time hiding out, trying to benefit off friendships and experiencing a lot of accidental killings. But that doesn't make them similar stories or situations.
|
|
maarow
Ghost in the Graveyard
Posts: 509
|
Post by maarow on Sept 15, 2012 15:00:08 GMT -5
I liked Hunger Games okay, but the plot contrivances made an impossible situation way too easy for the Mary Sue lead character to always do the right thing. She never had any really difficult choices to make--all the characters she killed were portrayed as EVIL and she did it in self-defense only, almost out of instinct. Battle Royale did a much better job, in my opinion, of conveying how nobody could get out of the competition with their hands clean and their souls intact. well Katniss does choose to compete in place of her little sister, and she would rather kill herself with poison berries than kill her friend, or be killed in the competition than kill her hometown friend at the end. Personally, I'd say those are all tough choices No she isn't "soiled" by the evil of the competition. That is what makes her special and gives hope to those who watch the completion. You don't have to be evil and murderous to survive in an evil world. I think that is a pretty thoughtful underlying message for a movie like this. I feel the opposite. To me it completely undermines the brutality of the concept, makes it all too "clean." It becomes like those old war movies where it's all just some grand adventure. To me shades of gray are much more interesting than pure black and white and a character who is ENTIRELY good and self-sacrificing (taking the place of her sister and choosing to kill herself rather than do harm to another are what makes her a Mary Sue in my book) is not only completely unrealistic, but downright boring. (Oh, and she's unusually beautiful as well as smart and altruistic and skilled? ZZZZZ.) I like my characters to gain a few scars on the way. That's why the Harry Potter series is much more interesting to me. Harry starts out as the quintessential "hero" but as the series goes along he is revealed to be in over his head. He's not the smartest, the most skilled, the best looking; he has attitude problems. You really feel the strain his role is taking on him and a lot of his survival is pure dumb luck, or he is bailed out by his friends and mentors. He makes the wrong choices. He makes enemies. He is not equipped with the best way to handle every situation. He's not inherently special. Katniss, on the other hand, as portrayed in the movie at least (I haven't read the books) is just too good to be true. If the message of the movie was intended to be that "you don't have to be evil and murderous to survive in an evil world" then the plot would not have bent over backwards to accommodate her specialness. I think you are giving the story too much credit. |
|
|
|
Post by xtrialbyfirex on Sept 15, 2012 15:24:07 GMT -5
You said she didn't have to make difficult choices, but she does. So I don't think you are giving THG enough credit =P
We live in an evil and disgusting world and despite that there are still special people who are "too good to be true" in the face of insurmountable evil. I.E., Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Ghandi, and the list goes on, however most of the people who are truly heroic and good, are completely unsung heroes.
Some people actually are completely self-sacrificial, when it matters the most, it's just the way the world is. Most people are a mixture of good and bad, and some people are almost entirely bad, and some people are almost entirely good. Whether or not that is "boring" to you is down to your personal preference. The fact that Katniss is completely self-sacrificial for the course of this installment of the story is not in any way unrealistic.
Does the plot bend over backwards for Katniss? Sure. Does the world bend over at the feet of good men and women. Sure. Sometimes it does;even if it is just for a moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by xtrialbyfirex on Sept 15, 2012 15:34:02 GMT -5
The same argument about killing in only in self-defense could be made of Shuya. He, like Katniss, was only trying to protect Noriko, and he spent a good, long time hiding out, trying to benefit off friendships and experiencing a lot of accidental killings. But that doesn't make them similar stories or situations. I didn't think Shuya and Noriko didn't do anything evil to survive or am I mistaken? |
|
maarow
Ghost in the Graveyard
Posts: 509
|
Post by maarow on Sept 15, 2012 23:46:33 GMT -5
You said she didn't have to make difficult choices, but she does. So I don't think you are giving THG enough credit =P I misspoke. She is never given a choice that would force her to compromise her moral principles, at least not one that she didn't make in a few seconds. She didn't struggle with her decisions. She just honed in on what the "right" thing to do was and did it. At least in, say, The Dark Knight, Batman does not compromise his principles but it costs him the world. We live in an evil and disgusting world and despite that there are still special people who are "too good to be true" in the face of insurmountable evil. I.E., Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Ghandi, and the list goes on, however most of the people who are truly heroic and good, are completely unsung heroes. Martin Luther King Jr. was an adulterer. Mother Teresa struggled with her faith. I do not say this to demean their accomplishments; on the contrary, knowing their struggles makes them more heroic because, like us, they were only human. Katniss was basically a robot. I couldn't identify with her. Some people actually are completely self-sacrificial, when it matters the most, it's just the way the world is. Most people are a mixture of good and bad, and some people are almost entirely bad, and some people are almost entirely good. Whether or not that is "boring" to you is down to your personal preference. The fact that Katniss is completely self-sacrificial for the course of this installment of the story is not in any way unrealistic. I guess you have a higher opinion of humanity than I do. Does the plot bend over backwards for Katniss? Sure. Does the world bend over at the feet of good men and women. Sure. Sometimes it does;even if it is just for a moment. Not really the same thing, unless you are saying the world makes it easy for real-life heroes like the movie made things easy for Katniss. And I'm sure that's not what you're saying. |
|
|
|
Post by xtrialbyfirex on Sept 16, 2012 15:32:58 GMT -5
"She is never given a choice that would force her to compromise her moral principles, at least not one that she didn't make in a few seconds."
I think Katniss shows several times she would rather die than compromise her morality. If you don't like that then that is your taste. I don't have a problem with it.
"Martin Luther King Jr. was an adulterer. Mother Teresa struggled with her faith. I do not say this to demean their accomplishments; on the contrary, knowing their struggles makes them more heroic because, like us, they were only human. Katniss was basically a robot. I couldn't identify with her."
There is obviously more nuance to a human being than a character in a 2.5 hour movie. I'm just saying in real life some people come up big consistently when it matters the most. Yes Katniss could use more nuance, but lets be honest, completely idealized protagonists are not a new thing in movies. Plus, at this point, to compare her character to Harry Potter is not fair. Potter has a 6 or 7 (or how many ever movies) to become a much more nuanced character. So far there has been 1 hunger games movie.
"I guess you have a higher opinion of humanity than I do."
In real life some people are just flat out better human beings than you or I am, or 99% of the rest of the planet. They might be an anomaly but that doesn't make them unrealistic. I think Katniss represents an anomaly in her own world. She's too good for it, and people clearly don't know what to think of her.
"Not really the same thing, unless you are saying the world makes it easy for real-life heroes like the movie made things easy for Katniss. And I'm sure that's not what you're saying."
I'm just saying that sometimes events line up so good men and women can do the right thing when they need to. It probably happens more than you would expect.
|
|
